Disappointed with Canon

nnowak wrote:

In some ways, this dead end was inevitable.

When Canon launched the M system, mirrorless was all about smallest possible size. Camera manufacturers were coming up with some odd looking designs just to get the sizes down, and micro 4/3 was actually stealing sales from Canon. Collapsible zooms and bodies smaller than the lens mount were common. Anything resembling even mediocre performance in mirrorless was not in the picture.

Canon recognized this trend and launched the M system (Canon always recognizes when something steals their sales). To ensure the system stayed small and aesthetically consistent, Canon decided to design all EF-M lenses around a 61mm diameter. While the initial marketing material made a big deal about compatibility with adapted EF lenses, the primary message was that the M system was an adjunct to a DSLR, not a replacement for a DSLR.

Two things Canon didn't see coming; full frame Sony mirrorless launching a year later in the A7, and those full frame Sony bodies gaining significant popularity as replacements for DSLRs. Canon just didn't see mirrorless as a tool for pros.

Canon could pivot and launch a full frame M, but there was a problem. The 61mm limit on lens diameter compromised the mount for full frame use. Because of the placement and size of the electrical contacts on the M mount, Canon would have a smaller diameter to work with than any other competing full frame system. Yes, even smaller than the Sony E mount. It could have worked, but would have been a long way from ideal. Canon could have picked any size when designing a new mount from scratch, but what they chose was just a hair too small to be future proof. To go full frame mirrorless, Canon was pretty much forced to start over with the larger RF mount.

During all of this creation of new mounts, the smartphone is rapidly swallowing up the dedicated camera market. Camera sales are now a fraction of what they were when EF-M launched. Canon can not support four different mounts at the current sales volume. RF is obviously safe. DSLRs are dead because they can no longer keep up with mirrorless cameras and cost more to manufacture. Then there is EF-M. The 2010 fad of smallest possible size has switched to the demad for highest possible performance. People realized cameras and lenses could actually be too small, and even the smallest mirrorless camera is still massive compared to a smarthohone. No one wants to lug around a 1DX, but the R10 is already small enough for a lot of people. While it is nice for some, going smaller can lead to ergonomic compromises for other people. RF-S can replicate enough of EF-M to make EF-M redundant. RF-S has already replicated EF-M pricing.

Upping the 61mm lens diameter by just a few millimeters could have been enough to make the EF-M mount viable for full frame and RF unnecessary. The much beloved Sigma 56mm f/1.4 is already bigger at 66.5mm in diameter. Canon chose fashion over form and literally missed by just a few millimeters.

Interesting post ,deserves to be a whole new thread . 😊